Blade Runner 2049 (2017)

[BusSport]

Promo supplementary short film 2036: Nexus Dawn:

 

[BusSport]

Excerpt clip:

 

[RegentDenali]

2nd prequel clip released. Can't wait for Oct 6th.

 

[blindbaby]

My own personal niggle is that I wish Vangelis was doing the score; his score on the original was absolutely fantastic.

 

[RegentDenali]

3rd prequel. 15 minute anime short. Amazing.

 

[BigDGarciaFan]

Why is blade runner 2049 making very little money? I was hoping it would be a big blockbuster type

 

[chf]

Theatre i was in yesterday (2pm IMAX) was packed to the gills.

 

[Duffman]

As a bartender at a movie theater I can say that this movie is officially a flop. Honestly there were points over the last 3 days that My Little Pony had more people in it than BR. Looking at the numbers it looks like it brought in 31 million on a 185 million budget.

 

[SDGuy73]

Theatre i was in yesterday (2pm IMAX) was packed to the gills.

But neglected to tell us if it is good or not.

 

[SDGuy73]

Domestic Total as of Oct. 8, 2017: $31,525,000 (Estimate)
Distributor: Warner Bros. Release Date: October 6, 2017
Genre: Sci-Fi Runtime: 2 hrs. 43 min.
MPAA Rating: R Production Budget: $150 million

 

[chf]

But neglected to tell us if it is good or not.

It's outstanding.

 

[chf]

the first movie was a 'flop' too.

This is a movie though that will have legs. And it's also (imo) a movie where people will pay out the extra to own it. I've never before shelled out the extra $20 for the 'super ticket,' I did this time.

At any rate it'll make its money back easily. It might not do as well as they'd hoped. But word of mouth will bring people in for weeks still. It won't be a 10 days in and out of the theatres movie.

 

[xpuctaqpGT]

I saw it last night. Visually stunning. I want to watch it at least one more time in the theaters for nuance.

 

[BigDGarciaFan]

Domestic Total as of Oct. 8, 2017: $31,525,000 (Estimate)
Distributor: Warner Bros. Release Date: October 6, 2017
Genre: Sci-Fi Runtime: 2 hrs. 43 min.
MPAA Rating: R Production Budget: $150 million

Still time to beg people to watch

 

[Omar 382]

It's outstanding.

Heh.

It was good. It was confusing as hell to me while I watched it, and then when I read the plot on Wikipedia, I realized that I basically understood most of what happened, I just didn't think the film's plot was centered around something so simplistic. It was also at least 20 minutes too long.

Nevertheless, Ryan Gosling is a great actor, and Jared Leto even surprised me with his (short) performance. It was also visually amazing.

It did not leave me asking any interesting questions like Blade Runner did. I gave the original Blade Runner 3/5 stars.

I also give Blade Runner 2049 a score of 3/5 stars.

 

[cmc_rebar]

Saw it yesterday to a 75% full theater.

We both thought it was great, the lighting, the effects, the plot all exceeded our expectations

 

[chf]

Heh.

It was good. It was confusing as hell to me while I watched it, and then when I read the plot on Wikipedia, I realized that I basically understood most of what happened, I just didn't think the film's plot was centered around something so simplistic. It was also at least 20 minutes too long.

Nevertheless, Ryan Gosling is a great actor, and Jared Leto even surprised me with his (short) performance. It was also visually amazing.

It did not leave me asking any interesting questions like Blade Runner did. I gave the original Blade Runner 3/5 stars.

I also give Blade Runner 2049 a score of 3/5 stars.

Dunno why it's simplistic, or why it doesn't make you consider the same questions as the first one did, since it asks the exact same questions. What does it mean to be human? If humanity can create servants, would they have intrinsic human rights?

Given the advances in machine intelligence and robotics, if anything those same questions are even MORE relevant today than they were 30 years ago with the original. It's not asking new questions, it's expanding on the little the original revealed about the replicants were, and what their purpose was.

Why was it confusing? If anything, I found this one much more straightforward in terms of me as an audience member knowing what was going on. (with the background of the first one of course) Why did you think it simplistic after reading some summary of what someone else thought it was about?

In terms of MOVIE-MAKING, there's no way that's 3 out of 5. 3 out of 5 is barely better than average. Meh indeed.

 

[Omar 382]

Dunno why it's simplistic, or why it doesn't make you consider the same questions as the first one did, since it asks the exact same questions. What does it mean to be human? If humanity can create servants, would they have intrinsic human rights?

Given the advances in machine intelligence and robotics, if anything those same questions are even MORE relevant today than they were 30 years ago with the original. It's not asking new questions, it's expanding on the little the original revealed about the replicants were, and what their purpose was.

Why was it confusing? If anything, I found this one much more straightforward in terms of me as an audience member knowing what was going on. (with the background of the first one of course) Why did you think it simplistic after reading some summary of what someone else thought it was about?

In terms of MOVIE-MAKING, there's no way that's 3 out of 5. 3 out of 5 is barely better than average. Meh indeed.

Actually, I sad "Heh," not "Meh." Get it right.

What part of the film made you wonder what it means to be human? That is indeed a very interesting (and I agree- relevant) question, but I did not feel that the topic was explored very much at all. I guess because the replicants reproduced? Doesn't seem to push the needle on the question very much at all.

I will full well admit that large portions of this movie confused me. For example, I did not know what the main conflict of the film was while watching. I could have guessed if I was pressed on it while watching that the conflict must have been that it was revealed that the replicants could reproduce, and Jared Leto's character wanted to find the child... and do something to learn about how it's possible that replicants can reproduce... so that the end result would be for all replicants to reproduce so he can do some sort of revolution. And then I looked at the plot summary, and this was the actual main conflict (right???) If so, seems a little simple to me. I don't know. Maybe "simple" isn't the right word. Meaningless? Hollow? Empty?

I mean, why is Leto so fixated on finding out how to reproduce anyway? Is his role ever explained? I assume he is mortal, but he is also the "leader" of replicants in some way. I think it was said that he makes them? I don't fucking know. I guess it was more interesting when Roy Batty didn't want to die than it is for Leto not wanting to be sterile. I mean, maybe it's just me- but I really wouldn't give two shits if me, or all of my contemporaries, were unable to reproduce.

And for the record, I fully admit (again) that I did not understand much of this film. I also do not hold the film accountable for my intellectual shortcomings. I may watch the film again and come to a better understanding of it such that I enjoy it more, and subsequently rate it higher. This happened with Interstellar, which I changed from 3.5/5 stars to 4/5 stars.

I still liked this film. I wasn't particularly bored with it at any given point. But I also felt that the plot could have been significantly better, and that the editing could have been more succinct. Maybe on a rewatch I understand/notice crucial elements to the plot and see the importance of certain scenes that I didn't see tonight, leading to a greater sense of enjoyment. I will re-rate the film accordingly.

But for now; 3/5 stars.

 

[chf]

In the first movie, it's introduced and is canon, that older version replicants are hunted and killed on sight. That's because they manage to break their conditioning and REBEL against their human masters (essentially resisting being slaves, with built in life-spans).

In a society where we build stronger, smarter, more beautiful humans, 'regular' humans are essentially outmoded, and cease to have purpose.

In the intervening years since the first movie, the earth has gotten MUCH worse (shown by the whole protein farm dealio, and the incredible shots of the massive garbage dump that is much of the western US), so the USE or UTILITY of humans is even worse off. How could you compete for a job with a replicant who is stronger/faster/better than you?

The movie posits this future, where essentially the future of mankind is 100% off planet. And that's why Niander Wallace convinces humanity to let him rebuild the replicants with new conditioning (supposedly safer). It's to colonize space. Replicants can go/do/survive where weak normal humans can't. (soldier Roy Batty in the original)

There's TONS of clues as to how solid the conditioning is on the new replicant models. Joe lies, Luv the assistant lies (and kills humans). They all cry when asked to do things they don't want to do.

If Wallace can build replicants who can procreate, he doesn't have to BUILD them anymore, and in his head, they can essentially be cheap slaves who can't run. (nod to American history)

He can then colonize space as he sees fit, without having to involve the authorities of government and their rules about replicants. He can BREED them.

So start there, there's PLENTY of other angles I can go down if you wish. You're not dumb, you're just suffering from a lack of imagination.

The 2049 future posits a literal turning point in the survival of the human race, or the ushering in of 'post' humans.

It's very fucking cool in the big ideas department. I can think of books that have touched it, but not sci-fi movies.

 

[chf]

so in terms of movies, 4.5 out of 5. In terms of the subset of sci-fi movies, 5 out of 5.